Volume 1

The principles and practice of medical jurisprudence / by the late Alfred Swaine Taylor.

  • Taylor, Alfred Swaine, 1806-1880.
Date:
1910
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: The principles and practice of medical jurisprudence / by the late Alfred Swaine Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    56/976 (page 36)
    merely quoted from other authorities for comment or illustration. On the other hand, it is not permissible, in giving evidence, for a witness to read from a book (virfc Documentary Evidence), nor to quote from one as a quotation. If he knows that in a certain work an opinion is expressed, he must learn it up and then say, I say so and BO : he must not sav, Dr. or Professor So-and-so says such is the case : but if the opposing counsel thinks he (the witness) is quoting and objects, it is quite open to the witness to say, Well, my opinion is the same. MEDICAL PEIYILEGE OE PKOFESSIONAL SECKECY. Some medical men have claimed a privilege not to answer certain questions which are put to them, on the ground that the matters have come to their knowledge through private and confidential communica- tions with their patients. The law concedes no such special privilege of this nature to members of the medical profession. No man is bound to reply to any question if the answer would tend m any way to incriminate himself, for no man is compellable to be a witness against himself. With this exception, all questions must be answered, pro- vided they are relevant to the case; and their relevancy is a matter for the consideration of the presiding judge. Sometimes a witness makes a frivolous objection—the refusal to answer an ordinary question —bringing only ridicule upon himself. A skilled expert, at an important trial, was asked his age. Instead of answering so simple a question at once, he angrily appealed to the judge to know whether he was bound to give an answer on a matter which, as he said, could have nothing to do with the case. The judge informed him that, unless he had some very strong reasons for concealing it, he had better state it. At a trial for murder by poison, in the course of a cross-examination, counsel for the prisoner asked the medical witness what remedy or antidote he had employed when he was first called to attend the deceased. He appealed to the judge to know whether he was bound to answer such a question as that.' Judge: Yes, unless you have reason to believe that your antidote killed the deceased. In that case you are not bound to answer it. The question was immediately answered. As there is no special privilege granted to members of the profes- sion, a witness must remember that there are no medical secrets. In the case of the Duchess of Kingston this privilege of withholding state- ments was claimed by a medical witness, but denied. In a case in which a female was indicted for the murder of her infant a surgeon was called to prove certain confessions made to him by the woman during his attendance. He objected on the ground that he was then attending her as a private patient. Park, J., said this was not a suffi- cient reason to prevent a disclosure for the purposes of justice, and he was ordered to answer the questions (Beck's Med. Jurisp.). At the meeting of the British Med. Assoc. at Leeds, August, 1869, Bate- man said, There are many cases in which a doctor cannot discharge his duty to a sick person without putting questions the replies to which